Friday, August 29, 2014

In
his book On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and
Ideological State Apparatuses, Louis Althusser expounds his ideas
on capitalism with its daily operations and functions, while highlighting Marxist theory in its revolutionary purpose to overturn the
capitalist way of life.

For
the most part (with the exception of occasional philanthropy here and
there), virtues like compassion and empathy are incompatible with the
notion of capitalism. In a sense, Althusser may be right that
capitalism means exploitation of the workers. It must be so because
capitalism is about money and profits.

If
you have the capital to purchase land or a business, you can hire people (labor) to work for you; in exchange you give them money
or compensation for their work and time (a wage). The lower the
wages, the higher your gains. There is then no wonder that minimum
wages work on bare minimums, meaning people barely make enough to get
by.

However,
in order to ensure the continuous existence (or reproduction of
relations) of capitalism, people need to be imbued with the idea that
capitalism despite its glaring greed and injustice is actually fair
and beneficial for everyone involved.

This (false) impression is
created in a number of ways, primarily through the ISAs (Ideological
State Apparatuses). In fact, according to Louis Althusser, pretty much
any ideology one can think of could be summed up under the umbrella
domain of one and the same state ideology.

For
Althusser, ideology is material and for the most part it serves the
state and the continuing exploitation of the dominated classes, i.e.
the working class. For example, the church is more often than not in
line with the bourgeoisie as this particular economic and political
system and relationship benefit the clergy (and their pockets) quite well.

This has
been done throughout history when the Catholic Church supported
worldly leaders, kings and emperors. Although religion still has a
stronghold on people today, the functions of the church have been
mostly replaced by the educational state apparatus.

Schools
are to ensure that both discipline and respect for authority and for
the law are instilled and drilled at an early age. These ideas are
taken up and propagated by the family institution as well. By having
people obey the given rules, it is mainly the capitalist system that
reaps benefits as there is little disruption to its functioning.

In
case of possible trouble or conflicts, there is always the law. The
law, Althusser believes, is a capitalist creation of the bourgeoisie
which under the guise of liberty and equality mainly benefits a
select few, namely the rich.

It is the wealthy that have the power
and access to circumvent law through loopholes and other means. In
the meantime, the rest of the populace take laws to be fair and just
and equally accessible to everyone, ideological lies that are served
to the masses.

If
the law is not followed by the masses, the repressive state apparatus
with police, riot force and ultimately the military are called in to
ensure that it is followed to the letter. Yet that is the exception
not the norm; for the most part, people are taught to respect the law
so that it becomes internalized and such disruptions can then be
avoided with preventive and preemptive manners.

For
example, most people follow the law and believe in its intrinsic value, that it is a moral
and right thing to do. In all those instances, the ideological
foundations of the person make the use of force both redundant and
unnecessary in most of everyday life.

(How
often do we take it as a "normal" thing to wake up early, show up at
work, take abuse or loads of work and pressure from our bosses only
to go home and to have the same occur day in day out. Rarely do we
challenge our bosses because that is not what good workers are
supposed to do; they need to behave and follow orders from perceived
authority figures, the manager, so no need to call the police to
settle issues.)

However,
at certain times where there is open defiance and revolt, for example
the May '68 events that were occurring during the time Althusser was
writing this book, the riot police and military need to ensure that
the capitalist system is not endangered or injured in the process.

According
to Communist ideology a successful revolution ought to ensure that
the bourgeois state apparatus is completely destroyed and replaced
with a new kind of system (Althusser seems rather vague on what and
how this new system should or would look like). This type of
overturning the state had occurred only partly during the French
Revolution because the bourgeoisie managed to take control over
the state. They had successfully disposed of the aristocracy but now
the bourgeoisie themselves, the growing merchant class, began to call
the shots and to oppress the workers, the proletariat.

There
are some fascinating bits in this book. Althusser's discussion of
ideology and the state apparatus are interesting, timely, and
relevant in a number of ways. It must have had some influence on
works by Noam Chomsky, especially his Manufacturing Consent. We can
see it today since people are constantly brainwashed by media,
sports, and politics, not to mention culture and religion, all of
which have parts and components that benefit the ruling class, the
capitalists.

I
was most impressed with his discussion of individuals and subjects.
Althusser claims that we are all subjects and have lost our
individual freedom and autonomy contrary to what we may think in the
Western world. Subject, in fact, is an ambiguous term, which could
alternatively mean either a person who acts freely and of his own
accord (as a noun) or its exact opposite, that is, a person who is studied or is
following enforced rules and regulations he is subjected to (as a verb).

Althusser
claims that we are subjects even before we are born, as we are born
into a family that has expectations and preconceived notions about us
and our gender. In fact, we are passive from the onset since our
names are chosen and given to us by others. Add to that cultural and
religious practices and the ensuing years of schooling, and we can
see that we are greased cogs in a capitalist machine.

In
fact, Althusser gives a brilliant explanation of religion, which is to
him an ideology that subjects all of us. Any ideology presupposes
that we recognize ourselves in them (otherwise they would be quite
useless). So, for example, me, that is my name and all the properties
attached to what makes me who I (think I) am, would recognize myself
as being a Christian. This is followed by a number of highly
ritualized practices, such as baptism, going to church, praying etc
all of which makes me - or rather is supposed to make me - a good
Christian.

But
all of this occurs and is done because it is seen as relevant to me
and my life. That means that there is a guarantee that I will
personally benefit from this particular ideology I have espoused and
the belief or faith that this is indeed true, that, for instance, God
actually exists and will reward me (after my death!) for my continuous efforts of being a good
Christian.

In
that sense, God would be the Subject that is dominant over all his
subjects on this planet. It would mean that God would need
humans
who are created in his image. This would make him as dependent on us
as we are on him. God could not be God without being recognized as
God by us humans. In other words, he needs us and he is, in fact,
able to put up with our unruly and sinful behaviors because it is
better than nothing. (This could be why he saved Noah and his family
from the Flood, out
of basic necessity not
out of compassion or love).

Evidently,
there is a touch of Hegel in here, especially regarding his ideas of
God (the Father) bridging the gap between the divine and humans by
“duplicating” himself as a human, Jesus (the Son), who is both
man and God, while the Holy Spirit is the mirror-connection,
image or glue between the two. All this is fascinating and makes the
open-minded theists scratch their head.

Yet
I do have some bones to pick with some of Althusser's ideas. First
off, he as well as Communist ideology in general rather seem vague on
a number of points, especially when it pertains to what the new state
ought to look like. It is like a doctor describing the symptoms quite
well without knowing how to cure the disease.

In fact, it seems that Communist
governments have been copying or reproducing the bourgeoisie, particularly in terms
of state apparatuses; Communist regimes have come to control and master them rather perfectly
as the self-appointed "dictators of the proletariat." So the ISAs may be
the same or even worse operating under different names and
ideologies.

Secondly,
I do not fully share his view on education. I believe I am justifying
or representing my own role as an educator here, but I intrinsically
believe that education and knowledge open the mind. Of course,
education is a broad concept, and there are qualitative differences, but
education is overall a means to achieve self-knowledge and freedom
because it ideally leads to critical thinking. At least that
is my view on what education is or ought to be.

Thirdly,
I do not believe that human rights and ethics and even philosophy are
all enslaving us to capitalist ideology the same way I do not think
that churches necessarily represent true faith. These are, in and of
themselves, very worthy and noble ideas and traditions that are
unfortunately being used (or rather ab-used) by the authorities to
cement their own power and influence. But to claim that ideology per se is an
illusion - and hence false - is not something I can accept, which is the main reason
I consider myself an idealist not a nihilist.

But
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and want to thank Verso Books for
publishing such thought-provoking and -inducing works and for also
sending it to me for review. This review took me a long time to write
(sorry!) because the weighty ideas expressed in them take sufficient
time to digest, but this book is definitely worth your time, effort,
and yes your money.

3 comments:

Capitalism certainly is receiving a bad rap these days. There is a certain community that knocks capitalism for oppressing the masses. Another that blames capitalism for fostering greed and excess. Another that attributes climate change to the excesses of corporations. Or for squelching human creativity and freedom. In certain communities the word 'corporate' has become a negative term. An insult, as in "Oh you're so corporate." So first of all, I have to declare my bias. I am a capitalist, and not only that, a commerce instructor. So go ahead and write me off; not only am I an oppressor of the masses, but I am spreading the contagion among our vulnerable and susceptible young people...;-)It's a good thing that we have alternative forms of organizing our economies, such as communism or feudalism or colonialism or hunting and gathering, all of which are entirely free of the vices of capitalism listed above. Could it be that these vices are actually weaknesses of human beings - and that capitalism - along withcommunism or feudalism or colonialism are merely tools? If a carpenter builds a house that falls down, should we blame the hammer?

Thank you for your comment, and you make some interesting observations here, dear Commerce Instructor.

Initially, I was planning to present my own views of how capitalism ought to work in an ideal society, but somehow the post would have gotten too long and rather unfocused. The focus here is mainly the great book by Louis Althusser; mixing them too much with my own ideas would have not given this French thinker enough space and justice.

So I will expose myself more clearly in due time. For now let it suffice to say that the main problem here is not capitalism per se, but it is its greed.

Capitalism works great for those who have the CAPITAL, let's call them the Haves, and not so great for those who don't, the Have-nots. That the former are responsible for a host of problems and ills in the world is beyond doubt and discussion here.

Yet that does not mean that the capitalist system is necessarily wrong nor does it mean that (God forbid) communism would be the best form of government. Far from it actually as I have mentioned somewhat in this post and in others as well.

That this could be an inherent human flaw I agree with however. Greed is human, yes. But it is at its basest and crudest form. Put differently, we can do much better than that.

If one were to say that laziness, another human flaw, is why communism does not work since those who do not work would get similar benefits as those who do (which is not fair), I would also agree with that statement.

What we are left with in the end is a sort of cliffhanger until further notice. In the meantime, commerce (and other) instructors need to teach and make money; such is life.

I think we are in agreement. Greed - and other human failings - is the problem, rather than any of the economic systems. All economic systems have their strengths and their weaknesses. But what matters most is how they are applied. I recall that the former Soviet Union had a constitution which, on paper, was idyllic. In practice, it didn't work as well.

Google Website Translator Gadget

Goodreads

A simple and straightforward overview of psychoanalysis with a focus on child psychology. Anna Freud's style is clear, compassionate and engaging.
I was quite interested in learning about the differences between the psychoanalytic treat...

Each / either field (Zen Buddhism / Psychoanalysis) is fascinating on its own terms but one day I felt that they were intimately and intricately connected and that turns out to be true! Although the book as a brief and general survey mer...